|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland.
Source
|
On June 20 2016 11:04 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 10:56 kwizach wrote:On June 20 2016 10:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Video on the wage gap myth and why Hillary is literally pandering for votes based on false premises by continuing to propagate the myth to the masses as a part of her campaign strategy + Show Spoiler + The wage gap is not a myth at all. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. The NYC department of sanitation is 91% male. I haven't seen a single person advocate for gender equality in this area.
Then look harder.
|
Girls choose different jobs then men, its pretty straight forward
|
On June 20 2016 11:04 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 10:56 kwizach wrote:On June 20 2016 10:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Video on the wage gap myth and why Hillary is literally pandering for votes based on false premises by continuing to propagate the myth to the masses as a part of her campaign strategy + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH4lb88DMeo The wage gap is not a myth at all. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. The NYC department of sanitation is 91% male. I haven't seen a single person advocate for gender equality in this area.
I think people are focusing on having the 9% of the NYC department of sanitation that's female receive equal pay to their male counterparts first before trying to address larger cultural issues that may pressure women away from high-paying positions. Mostly because the first problem is something you can fix with policy a lot more easily, and the second problem may become less pronounced once the first is taken care of.
|
On June 20 2016 11:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:04 CorsairHero wrote:On June 20 2016 10:56 kwizach wrote:On June 20 2016 10:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Video on the wage gap myth and why Hillary is literally pandering for votes based on false premises by continuing to propagate the myth to the masses as a part of her campaign strategy + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH4lb88DMeo The wage gap is not a myth at all. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. The NYC department of sanitation is 91% male. I haven't seen a single person advocate for gender equality in this area. Then look harder.
There are also numerous lawsuits sexual harassment across the country for sanitation departments and other male dominated fields. Male dominated fields are hard for women to break into. It was the same with the medical field and being an attorney.
On June 20 2016 11:33 Hexe wrote:
Girls choose different jobs then men, its pretty straight forward
Glad you are here to clear these things up for us.
|
On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source
Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance.
|
The fact that the hardest part of the nomination for Trump is the part where he no longer has opponents is pretty telling. He talks about making deals, but he can't even deal with the party who's nomination he won.
|
On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance.
Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing?
|
The wage gap is not a myth at all
Then they should sue their company for not adhering to the Equal pay act of 1963.
Seriously. If these women were as underpaid as you say then they could band together and prove it in court.
|
On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing?
I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly.
|
On June 20 2016 10:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 10:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Video on the wage gap myth and why Hillary is literally pandering for votes based on false premises by continuing to propagate the myth to the masses as a part of her campaign strategy + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH4lb88DMeo The wage gap is not a myth at all. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. ( see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women.
Okay you do that me and my girlfriend working on her STEM degree will continue not caring because there is no huge problem equality is better today than it ever has been and in some cases it has actually reversed in the opposite direction where women have inherent advantages in getting hired over men all other factors being equal.
The 'wage gap' is a myth. It implies something it doesn't factually represent. What it represents is something far different and just goes to show what happens when common laypeople get a hold of scholarly data far above their education and run with their own interpretation of it.
|
On June 20 2016 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing? I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly.
Rubio would get shat on pretty badly if his own state favored Trump over him. I could instantly think of 10-20 talking points that would make him look far less defensible than Trump. Kasich looks good until you actually start listening to what he has to say.
Any other "decent candidates" the Republicans could pull out of reserve?
|
On June 20 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing? I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly. Rubio would get shat on pretty badly if his own state favored Trump over him. I could instantly think of 10-20 talking points that would make him look far less defensible than Trump.
With the general election audience? Trump got 13 million votes during the primaries and only won a plurality vote. He's isn't popular overall. Is this really relevant for a general election?
|
Look at all the jobs women aren't fighting for equality in. Fuckin' men. Keeping women out of the boilermaker market.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 20 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing? I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly. Rubio would get shat on pretty badly if his own state favored Trump over him. I could instantly think of 10-20 talking points that would make him look far less defensible than Trump. Kasich looks good until you actually start listening to what he has to say. Any other "decent candidates" the Republicans could pull out of reserve?
I disagree. Granted I haven't really got a clue about this and it's just my gut feelings but I still think Rubio would have had a shot at the general election.
Unless if what our guys who tend to vote republican on here are talking about really is true: The idea that Republicans would not vote for him because they're done with "weaklings" giving in. Which basicly is the same debunked myth about Romney and how supposedly far-right leaning people stayed home when in reality they were the strongest voting block out of them all. Sure chances are it's going to be different this time and they will stay home, but if that's the case all is lost anyways and it's time to think about 2020
|
On June 20 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, Trump is pretty clearly a highly successful businessman. Everyone who tries to say otherwise purely by virtue of the fact that they don't like him makes the anti-Trump side look like complete morons.
I'm not impressed, considering the money and political connections he needed from his dad. I'm also not impressed by his conquer-Atlantic-City-with-debt strategy. Or by the fact that the only reason he didn't file for personal bankruptcy is his creditors didn't want to deal with the legal fight he has a penchant for.
|
On June 20 2016 12:12 SK.Testie wrote:Look at all the jobs women aren't fighting for equality in. Fuckin' men. Keeping women out of the boilermaker market. + Show Spoiler +
women and men have different priorities when it comes to the job market. There should not be a fight to make everything 50/50, that is just going to create too much cognitive dissonance. Just accept that we are different and let people do what they want. These quotas are creating unfair environments to begin with. Wage gap is a complete myth, after all factors are controlled women might be at a very slight disadvantage, but the whole 70 cents on the dollar is feminist propaganda, that will not refuse to die. The left loves that line because it gets them so many free feminist points.
|
On June 20 2016 12:26 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing? I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly. Rubio would get shat on pretty badly if his own state favored Trump over him. I could instantly think of 10-20 talking points that would make him look far less defensible than Trump. Kasich looks good until you actually start listening to what he has to say. Any other "decent candidates" the Republicans could pull out of reserve? I disagree. Granted I haven't really got a clue about this and it's just my gut feelings but I still think Rubio would have had a shot at the general election. Unless if what our guys who tend to vote republican on here are talking about really is true: The idea that Republicans would not vote for him because they're done with "weaklings" giving in. Which basicly is the same debunked myth about Romney and how supposedly far-right leaning people stayed home when in reality they were the strongest voting block out of them all. Sure chances are it's going to be different this time and they will stay home, but if that's the case all is lost anyways and it's time to think about 2020
Rubio would not stand a chance. It literally took one punch to knock him down.
+ Show Spoiler + (LOL)
|
On June 20 2016 12:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 12:26 Toadesstern wrote:On June 20 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 20 2016 11:49 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2016 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Pressure for one last attempt to dump Donald Trump built among Republicans on Sunday, as the party’s leader appeared to encourage a possible revolt that could still see an alternative nominee chosen at next month’s national convention.
After a week in which the presumptive nominee appalled many colleagues with his reaction to a shooting massacre in Orlando, House speaker Paul Ryan made clear he would not try to obstruct any rebellion against Trump by delegates in Cleveland.
“They write the rules, they make the decisions,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “All I want to make sure is to make sure it is done above board, clearly, honestly and by the rules.”
As the highest-ranking Republican in Congress, Ryan will serve as chairman of the party’s convention in late July, when delegates won through primaries formally elect a nominee.
He added: “I see my role, now that he’s got the plurality [of delegates], he actually won, is pretty much a ceremonial position. But the last thing I am going to do is weigh in and tell delegates what to do.”
Ryan also declined to criticise growing numbers of House and Senate Republicans who are taking a more active role in fomenting revolt, persuading delegates to ignore primary election results or vote for a rule change that could unbind them from backing Trump in Cleveland. Source Damn it. Trump is turning out to be such a train wreck that Clinton might have to run against a decent candidate. She'll still win, but I wanted dominance. Who is this fabled "decent candidate" and where will the GOP procure such a thing? I think Rubio or Kasich would lose less badly. Rubio would get shat on pretty badly if his own state favored Trump over him. I could instantly think of 10-20 talking points that would make him look far less defensible than Trump. Kasich looks good until you actually start listening to what he has to say. Any other "decent candidates" the Republicans could pull out of reserve? I disagree. Granted I haven't really got a clue about this and it's just my gut feelings but I still think Rubio would have had a shot at the general election. Unless if what our guys who tend to vote republican on here are talking about really is true: The idea that Republicans would not vote for him because they're done with "weaklings" giving in. Which basicly is the same debunked myth about Romney and how supposedly far-right leaning people stayed home when in reality they were the strongest voting block out of them all. Sure chances are it's going to be different this time and they will stay home, but if that's the case all is lost anyways and it's time to think about 2020 Rubio would not stand a chance. It literally took one punch to knock him down. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmRLzbsmJkU
Beyond the memorable sound bite, Christie had a solid point that Rubio was an absentee Senator. Hillary would manage rather easily to make him look like a clueless do-nothing moron who just sounds pretty, but it seems that the primaries did that to him first.
|
has the advantage of not having Cruz' face or Trumps personality with ongoing 20 years or whatever of slinging mud at Clinton though
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chalabi-datalab-flightattendants-2.png?w=575)
